Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Oct 2014 17:00

China checks: India to double border outposts, use drones in Arunachal Pradesh - Deeptiman Tiwary, ToI

Though much of the border trouble vis-a-vis China has been visible in Leh-Ladakh region recently, it is the Arunachal Pradesh border which is most vulnerable because of its terrain and lack of infrastructure. In view of this, home minister Rajnath Singh on Friday announced that ITBP border outposts (BoPs) in Arunachal would be more than doubled and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) deployed for effective surveillance.

This would eventually result in infusion of close to 10 more battalions (around 10,000 soldiers) in the region, considerably increasing the presence of Indian forces in Arunachal. Singh also announced sanction of Rs 175 crore for repair and maintenance of border infrastructure in the state.

The announcement comes even as China has raised serious objections to India constructing roads and other infrastructure in Arunachal, which it has often claimed as its own.

While addressing ITBP personnel on the force's 53rd Raising Day, Singh announced that the government had sanctioned 54 new BoPs to be constructed on the Arunachal border. At present, there are about 40 BoPs on the 1,126 km Arunachal border making patrolling and surveillance in the region extremely difficult.

While on Indo-Pak border, there are BoPs every three-four km, on the Arunachal border the distance can stretch up to 50-100 km between two BoPs in certain sectors. "There was an urgent need to increase the number of BoPs in Arunachal. The proposal had been in the works for a year. We are happy the government has sanctioned it. We will now need to increase the strength on the border by eight to 10 battalions to man these new BoPs," said an ITBP officer.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Oct 2014 02:29

"Deep Threat",the Chinese sub threat to Indo-Asia-Pacific nations.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/chinas-s ... 4738[quote]
Deep Threat
China’s Submarines Add Nuclear-Strike Capability, Altering Strategic Balance

By Jeremy Page

Soldiers stand on guard next to a Chinese navy nuclear-missile submarine at the Qingdao base in eastern China. Yin Haiyang/Color China Photo/Associated Press

One Sunday morning last December, China’s defense ministry summoned military attachés from several embassies to its monolithic Beijing headquarters.

To the foreigners’ surprise, the Chinese said that one of their nuclear-powered submarines would soon pass through the Strait of Malacca, a passage between Malaysia and Indonesia that carries much of world trade, say people briefed on the meeting.

Two days later, a Chinese attack sub—a so-called hunter-killer, designed to seek out and destroy enemy vessels—slipped through the strait above water and disappeared. It resurfaced near Sri Lanka and then in the Persian Gulf, say people familiar with its movements, before returning through the strait in February—the first known voyage of a Chinese sub to the Indian Ocean.

The message was clear: China had fulfilled its four-decade quest to join the elite club of countries with nuclear subs that can ply the high seas. The defense ministry summoned attachés again to disclose another Chinese deployment to the Indian Ocean in September—this time a diesel-powered sub, which stopped off in Sri Lanka.

China’s increasingly potent and active sub force represents the rising power’s most significant military challenge yet for the region. Its expanding undersea fleet not only bolsters China’s nuclear arsenal but also enhances the country’s capacity to enforce its territorial claims and thwart U.S. intervention.

China is expected to pass another milestone this year when it sets a different type of sub to sea—a “boomer,” carrying fully armed nuclear missiles for the first time—says the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence, or ONI.

China is hardly hiding its new boomers. Tourists could clearly see three of them at a base opposite a resort recently in China’s Hainan province. On the beach, rented Jet Skis were accompanied by guides to make sure riders didn’t stray too close.

These boomers’ missiles have the range to hit Hawaii and Alaska from East Asia and the continental U.S. from the mid-Pacific, the ONI says.

“This is a trump card that makes our motherland proud and our adversaries terrified,” China’s navy chief, Adm. Wu Shengli, wrote of the country’s missile-sub fleet in a Communist Party magazine in December. “It is a strategic force symbolizing great-power status and supporting national security.”

To naval commanders from other countries, the Chinese nuclear sub’s nonstop Indian Ocean voyage was especially striking, proving that it has the endurance to reach the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s headquarters in Hawaii.

“They were very clear with respect to messaging,” says Vice Adm. Robert Thomas, a former submariner who commands the U.S. Seventh Fleet, “to say that, ‘We’re a professional navy, we’re a professional submarine force, and we’re global. We’re no longer just a coastal-water submarine force.’ ”

In recent years, public attention has focused on China’s expanding military arsenal, including its first aircraft carrier and stealth fighter. But subs are more strategically potent weapons: A single one can project power far from China and deter other countries simply by its presence.

China’s nuclear attack subs, in particular, are integral to what Washington sees as an emerging strategy to prevent the U.S. from intervening in a conflict over Taiwan, or with Japan and the Philippines—both U.S. allies locked in territorial disputes with Beijing.

And even a few functional Chinese boomers compel the U.S. to plan for a theoretical Chinese nuclear-missile strike from the sea. China’s boomer patrols will make it one of only three countries—alongside the U.S. and Russia—that can launch atomic weapons from sea, air and land.

“I think they’ve watched the U.S. submarine force and its ability to operate globally for many, many years—and the potential influence that can have in various places around the globe,” says Adm. Thomas, “and they’ve decided to go after that model.”

China's nuclear-sub deployments, some naval experts say, may become the opening gambits of an undersea contest in Asia that echoes the cat-and-mouse game between U.S. and Soviet subs during the Cold War—a history popularized by Tom Clancy's 1984 novel "The Hunt for Red October."

Back then, each side sent boomers to lurk at sea, ready to fire missiles at the other’s territory. Each dispatched nuclear hunter-killers to track the other’s boomers and be ready to destroy them.

The collapse of the Soviet Union ended that tournament. But today, as China increases its undersea firepower, the U.S. and its allies are boosting their submarine and anti-sub forces in Asia to counter it.

Neither China nor the U.S. wants a Cold War rerun. Their economies are too interdependent, and today’s market-minded China doesn’t seek global revolution or military parity with the U.S.

Chinese officials say their subs don’t threaten other countries and are part of a program to protect China’s territory and expanding global interests. Chinese defense officials told foreign attachés that the subs entering the Indian Ocean would assist antipiracy patrols off Somalia, say people briefed on the meetings.

Related Articles
As China Deploys Nuclear Submarines, U.S. P-8 Poseidon Jets Snoop on Them
When Sub Goes Silent, Who Has Control of Its Nuclear Warheads?
Underwater Drones Join Microphones to Listen for Chinese Subs

Asked about those meetings, China’s defense ministry said its navy’s activities in the Indian and Pacific Oceans “comply with international law and practice, and we maintain good communication with all relevant parties.”

Submarines help Beijing fulfill international duties without changing its defense policy, says China’s navy spokesman, Sr. Capt. Liang Yang. “If a soldier originally has a handgun, and you give him an assault rifle, you’ve increased his firepower, but his responsibilities haven’t changed.” He declines to comment on boomer patrols.

Still, the U.S. has moved subs to the forefront of its so-called rebalancing, a strategy of focusing more military and diplomatic resources on Asia. Sixty percent of the U.S. undersea force is in the Pacific, U.S. naval commanders say, compared with half the U.S. surface fleet. The U.S. Navy plans to station a fourth nuclear attack sub in Guam next year, they say.

Since December, the U.S. has positioned six new P-8 anti-submarine aircraft in Okinawa, Japan. The U.S. has also revitalized an undersea microphone system designed to track Soviet subs and is testing new technologies such as underwater drones to search for Chinese subs.

Related Article: As China Deploys Nuclear Submarines, U.S. P-8 Poseidon Jets Snoop on Them

Several nearby countries, including Australia, have said they plan to expand or upgrade their submarine and anti-sub forces. Vietnam, which is embroiled in a territorial dispute with China, has since December received at least two of the six Russian-made attack subs it has ordered.

Australia’s navy chief, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, told a parliamentary committee on Wednesday that the 12 subs his country is buying to replace its six-strong current fleet would need to operate far afield, potentially in contested areas of the South China Sea. “There are other nations in the area that are building their submarine forces as well,” he said. “The issue for us is to be able to consider that we may need to counter those things.”

Rear Adm. Phillip Sawyer, the commander of U.S. submarine forces in the Pacific, says that many more submarines are now operating in the region than during the Cold War. “One of my biggest concerns truthfully is submarine safety,” he says on a recent dive aboard the USS Houston, a nuclear-attack sub based in Hawaii. “The more submarines you put in the same body of water, the higher the probability that they might collide.”

China now has one of the world’s biggest attack-sub fleets, with five nuclear models and at least 50 diesel models. It has four boomers, the ONI says.

Beijing’s quest for a nuclear-sub fleet dates to the 1960s, say Chinese historians. Mao Zedong once declared, “We will build a nuclear submarine even if it takes us 10,000 years!”

China has used diesel subs since the 1950s, but they have proved easy to find because they must surface every few hours. Nuclear subs are faster and can stay submerged for months. China launched its first nuclear sub on Mao’s birthday in 1970 and test-fired its first missile from underwater in 1988, although its first boomer never patrolled carrying armed nuclear missiles, U.S. naval officers say.

Adm. Liu Huaqing, the founder of China's modern navy, outlined the role of nuclear attack subs in his overall strategy in the 1980s, Chinese historians say. He saw China as constrained by U.S. forces aligned in both a "First Island Chain" stretching from southern Japan to the Philippines and a "Second Island Chain" from northern Japan via Guam to Indonesia. He argued that China should establish naval dominance within the first chain by 2010, within the second chain by 2020 and become a global naval power by 2050.

China officially unveiled its nuclear undersea forces in October 2013 in an unprecedented open day for domestic media at a nuclear-sub base. Its capabilities aren’t close to those of the U.S., which has 14 boomers and 55 nuclear attack subs.

The U.S. concern is how to maintain that edge in Asia when the Navy projects that fiscal constraints will shrink its attack-sub fleet to 41 by 2028.

Beijing isn’t likely to try matching the U.S. sub force, having studied the way the Cold War arms race drained the Soviet Union’s finances. “We’re not that stupid,” says retired Maj. Gen. Xu Guangyu, a former vice president of the People’s Liberation Army Defense Institute.

“But we need enough nuclear submarines to be a credible force—to have some bargaining chips,” he says. “They must go out to the Pacific Ocean and the rest of the world.”

China's hunter-killers pose the immediate challenge to the U.S. and its partners. Adm. Sawyer has tracked them for more than a decade, first as a commander of U.S. subs in Japan and Guam and now from his headquarters in Pearl Harbor.

On his desk is a glass-encased naval chart with white labels marking China’s submarine bases. Drawn on the map are two lines marking “First Island Chain” and “Second Island Chain.”

Over the past few years, Chinese attack subs have broken beyond the first chain to operate regularly in the Philippine Sea and have started patrolling year-round, Adm. Sawyer says. Penetrating the second chain is the next logical step, he adds: “They are not just building more units and more assets, but they’re actually working to get proficient with them and understand how they’d operate in a far-away-from-home environment.” Related article: When Sub Goes Silent, Who Has Control of Its Nuclear Warheads?

Adm. Sawyer declines to say whether China has sent a sub as far as Hawaii but says the December Indian Ocean expedition shows that it has “the capability and the endurance” to do so.

That was a Shang-class sub, a type naval experts say China first launched in 2002 that can carry torpedoes and cruise missiles. In peacetime, China would probably use these hunter-killers to protect sea lanes, track foreign vessels and gather intelligence, naval experts say. But in a conflict, they would likely try to break through the First Island Chain to threaten approaching vessels and disrupt supply lines.

Still, the two recent sub voyages highlighted a weak point for China. Its subs must use narrow straits to reach the Pacific or Indian Oceans. Those chokepoints—among them, the Malacca, Sunda, Lombok, Luzon and Miyako Straits—can be relatively easily monitored or blockaded.

Moreover, China’s anti-sub capabilities remain relatively weak. U.S. subs can track their Chinese counterparts even near China’s shores, where U.S. ships and planes are vulnerable to Chinese aircraft and missiles, American naval officers say.

Adm. Sawyer declines to say whether the U.S. tracked the Shang or how close U.S. subs get to China, saying only: “I’m comfortable with the U.S. submarine force’s capability to execute whatever tasking we’re given.”

The USS Houston returned recently from a seven-month deployment to the Western Pacific. Its commanding officer, Cmdr. Dearcy P. Davis, declines to say exactly where the sub went but adds, “I can say that we went untracked by anyone. We have the ability to break down the door if someone [else] can’t. That’s not trivial.”

China’s missile-carrying boomers present a longer-term challenge.

From the Lan Sanya beach resort in Hainan, guests can easily make out the matte-black hulls of what naval experts say are three of China’s new boomers, known as the Jin-class, and one Shang-class attack sub. As he threw open a hotel room’s curtains, a bellboy beamed with pride and pointed out the vessels across the bay. “Better not go that way,” joked a Jet Ski guide on a recent ride. “They might shoot at us.”

China hasn’t said when it might launch boomer patrols. But Western naval officers saw the October nuclear-sub event as a signal that the Jin subs and their JL-2 missiles were ready to start.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, a former submariner who is now the U.S. chief of naval operations, says that the U.S. is waiting to see how China will use its new boomers. “Is it an occasional patrol they’re going to choose to do? Is it going to be a continuous patrol? Are they going to try to be sure that this patrol is totally undetected?” he says. “I think that’s all going to be in the equation as to our response.”

Soviet boomers ventured far into the Pacific and Atlantic into the 1970s because their missiles couldn’t reach the U.S. from Soviet waters. As missile ranges increased, Soviet subs retreated to so-called bastions, such as the Sea of Okhotsk. The U.S. deployed hunter-killers around those bastions.

Similar dynamics are at play as China decides whether to send its own boomers into the Pacific. Their JL-2 missiles can travel about 4,600 miles—possibly enough to strike the U.S. West Coast from East Asia, the ONI says. To strike more U.S. targets, they would need to lurk throughout the Pacific.

But China’s boomers probably couldn’t pass undetected through many straits, say U.S. officers and Chinese experts. “The Jin class is too noisy: It’s probably at the level of the Soviets between 1970 and 1980,” says Wu Riqiang, a former missile specialist who studies nuclear strategy at Beijing’s Renmin University. “As long as you are noisy, you won’t even go through the chokepoints.”

Early in the Cold War, the U.S. built a network of seabed microphones to listen at chokepoints leading to the Pacific and Atlantic. In recent years, the U.S. has revitalized parts of that network, called the Sound Surveillance System, or Sosus. The U.S. is also now adding mobile networks of sensors—some on underwater drones—and seeking surveillance data from Asian countries. Related Article: Underwater Drones Join Microphones to Listen for Chinese Subs

Meanwhile, China is trying to replicate Sosus, say several naval experts. A government-backed scientific journal reported last year that China had built a fiber-optic acoustic network in the South China Sea.

Over the short term, Prof. Wu says, China will probably keep its boomers near its coast, possibly in the South China Sea, which is deepest and furthest from U.S. bases. That, say some naval officers, may explain why China keeps its Jin-class subs in Hainan and why it is pressing territorial claims and hindering U.S. surveillance there.

Last November, China declared an "air-defense identification zone" over the East China Sea and warned of measures against aircraft that entered without identifying themselves in advance. Many U.S. officials expect China to do the same over the South China Sea, although Chinese officials say they have no immediate plans for that.

In August, the Pentagon said a Chinese fighter had flown dangerously close to a U.S. P-8 near Hainan. China’s defense ministry publicly said that its pilot flew safely and asked the U.S. to cease such operations.

The problem with confining boomers to the South China Sea is that Beijing fears that missiles fired from there could be neutralized by the next stages of a U.S. regional missile-defense system, Chinese nuclear experts say.

Prof. Wu, who has taken part in nuclear-strategy negotiations with the U.S., predicts that over the next two decades, China will make quieter boomers that can patrol the open sea even as the U.S. pursues a global missile-defense system.

“I hope the U.S. and China can break this cycle,” he says, “but I’m not optimistic.”

—Rob Taylor in Canberra contributed to this article.
Deep Threat | China’s Submarines Add Nuclear-Strike Capability, Altering Strategic Balance
By Jeremy Page
[/quote]

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 Oct 2014 10:04

India conveys concern at Chinese presence in Sri Lanka - Meera Srinivasan, The Hindu

India has expressed serious concern to Sri Lanka over China’s increasing military presence on the island, it is reliably learnt.

Official sources in New Delhi told The Hindu that Sri Lankan Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s India visit last week was for a meeting in this connection. The Defence Secretary, who is the brother of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, met National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval and Defence Minister Arun Jaitley. “The meeting was held to raise the issue of a Chinese submarine calling at a Sri Lankan port last month. It is of serious concern to India's national security,” said a senior official, who requested anonymity.

Changzheng 2, a nuclear-powered Chinese submarine, docked at the Colombo International Container Terminals Ltd on September 15. It was the first such submarine to visit Sri Lanka, the Sunday Times reported. Earlier, two Chinese naval vessels had docked in Colombo from September 7 to 13, it said.

China and Sri Lanka have strong ties, with China investing heavily in infrastructure projects in the island. China is also its vocal supporter at the Human Rights Council, where 23 countries voted in favour of an international inquiry into Sri Lanka’s rights record in 2014. India had abstained.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Oct 2014 16:29

X-post from Vietnam thread
India-Vietnam naval ties to deepen strategic partnership - Suhasini Haider, The Hindu

India and Vietnam are aided by the fact that they had relied heavily on Russian military hardware in the past and have capabilities that can be shared, says a source.

Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and his delegation, on a two-day visit from Monday, will discuss placing orders for offshore patrol vehicles at Indian shipyards using the $100-million line of credit provided by India under a defence agreement.

The latest MoU will further solidify India’s assistance on vessel construction and submarine training to Vietnam’s forces as part of the Strategic Partnership signed between the two countries in 2007.

The agreements for the OVL to prospect in two more fields, along with another MoU for PetroVietnam to prospect for oil off the Indian coast in the Bay of Bengal, will have a geostrategic impact. In September 2011, China issued a demarche to India over Vietnam’s decision to allow the OVL to prospect in blocks number 127 and 128. At the time, India cited Vietnam’s sovereign claims over the blocks.

Asked on Friday about the possibility of China’s objections over agreements during the current visit, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin said, “Vietnam has offered us some blocks in the South China Sea, we are examining it. If they are commercially viable for us, certainly we will take those into account and proceed further.”

New airlinks

India and Vietnam will announce new airlinks, with Jet Airways set to start direct flights connecting Delhi and Mumbai to Ho Chi Minh City on November 5, while Vietnam Airlines will commence operations between Hanoi and Delhi in 2015.

Mr. Modi and Mr. Nguyen are likely to announce new target figures for trade and infrastructure investment. India has won bids for highway management and thermal power plants with the total investment in Vietnam totalling $1 billion.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Oct 2014 10:51

Colombo allays Delhi’s concern over China - PTI, The Hindu

Amid reports of increasing military ties with China, Sri Lanka on Monday sought to allay India’s concerns, insisting it will do nothing to compromise the security of this country.

Sri Lanka Navy chief Vice Admiral Jayantha Perera, who is on a five-day visit here, maintained that there is no Chinese military presence in his country.

“We have very good co-operation with India. We will never compromise on national security of India. India’s security is our security,” he told reporters here.

Asked about reports that its military ties with China are increasing, he denied it, saying “Their [Chinese] interest is very commercial... ”

His comments came against the backdrop of reports in Sri Lanka media that Changzheng 2, a nuclear-powered submarine, had docked at the Colombo International Container Terminal Ltd. in September.Two other Chinese naval vessels had docked in Colombo from September 7 to 13.

When his attention was drawn to Changzheng 2, Mr. Perera said, “It was a conventional submarine and not a nuclear one.” {This is indeed a Han-class nuclear powered submarine. I hope that the Admiral did not think we were dumb and what he meant to say instead was probably that it did not carry nuclear weapons. The fair question to ask is how he was sure about that. It also does not matter whether it carried nukes or not. For India, the antenna is raised the moment such a vessel docks at a Colombo port}

Indian Navy Chief Admiral R.K. Dhowan stressed the “very strong” ties with Sri Lanka.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2014 12:14

http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy ... shrewdness
October 20, 2014
The myth of China's strategic shrewdness
HIROYUKI AKITA,

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Chinese President Xi Jinping in September © AP

TOKYO --Imagine if just a few days before China's leader Xi Jinping made his first official visit to Japan, the Chinese navy entered the Japanese territory around Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. Should it happen, tensions would boil over, making it hard for the visit to proceed as planned.

An incident similar to this hypothetical situation actually happened recently. According to local reports, days before Xi's visit to India, scheduled to begin on Sept. 17, without any warning, Chinese troops crossed into Indian-controlled territory in the disputed Ladakh region. The border in this area is yet to be demarcated, even decades after the Sino-Indian conflict of 1962.

Over 1,000 Chinese soldiers entered the territory this September. It was still happening after Xi's arrival in India, and meant that as the leader called for friendship and cooperation with India's people, Chinese soldiers remained in India-controlled soil.

Some observers believe that Xi allowed the troops to cross the line of control, aiming to keep India in check. But the prevailing view is that the Chinese military acted without Xi's knowledge. Many officials, including those at Japanese and U.S. national security authorities, share the latter view.

The purpose of Xi's Indian visit was to express Sino-Indian friendship and lessen the influence of Japan and the U.S. on India. However, the India-China border incursion has seriously damaged any such aims, it also caused embarrassment for the Chinese president.

A similar border incident occurred in the spring of 2013, roughly a month before Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited India.

Unpredictably dangerous moves

"Obviously China's local military acted without authority, and China's leaders appeared confused," said a diplomatic source familiar with developments behind the scenes. "I had information that at that time, that local commanders responsible for the troops were feeling frustrated over Xi's budget restrictions and appointments of officials."

Naturally India is alarmed by the developments. "People's Liberation Army behavior along the India-China border areas has been quite unpredictable and stubborn," says Professor Jagannath Prasad Panda, a research fellow at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses in New Delhi. "Though China is keen for greater economic cooperation with India, they want to send the strong message that the security and territorial issues should not be confused with economic cooperation."

Possibly due to well known Chinese literary classics, such as "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "The Art of War" by ancient military strategist Sun Tzu, it is widely imagined that Chinese people are very tactful strategists, carefully calculating everything they do. However, it seems that this does not apply to the China of today.

China, like other nations, has many carefully prepared strategies. It hopes to use its growing strength to change the current Asian political order and the American hegemonic hold that it was built on. If this is to be achieved, China's best policy would be to positively engage neighboring countries to win them over. But the country is doing the opposite.

Two weeks later, Modi met U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington. © Reuters

As a result, China has driven India into the arms of the Japan-U.S. alliance. Two weeks after his summit with Chinese President Xi, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington. There they agreed to establish a dialogue among the foreign ministers of India, the U.S. and Japan.

According to U.S. military sources, the Indian and U.S. leaders also set up military cooperation projects, such as the use of U.S. technology by India to build an aircraft carrier as well as India's licensed production of U.S. weapons, although the two countries refrained from announcing these agreements.

Hindered by size?

President Xi might have started to think that the Chinese military's recent behavior is not helping his diplomatic aims. However, the present state of China may be likened to an obese man with so many health issues that his brain and nerves are not well aligned, causing different body parts to act independently and without synchronicity.

If true, the current state of play is worrisome, because a handshake between national leaders may not ensure the aversion of military clashes.

Since the start of this year, Chinese fighter jets have made two dangerous approaches on Japanese Air Self-Defense Force aircraft. They have done the same to U.S. fighter planes several times. While some media regarded the actions as Chinese provocations, Japanese and U.S. officials believe that either the pilots or local Chinese commanders acted on their own authority.

Before World War II, some U.S. officials believed that increasing pressure on Japan would not trigger a war because the Imperial military was under the Emperor's "supreme command." But history has proved that such military controls are not always as strong as thought from the outside.

Arguments about China's threats tend to be made on the premise that China always has a common will. If this is not the case, the world needs to deal with China in a more sophisticated manner than simply assuming a "hard-line" or "conciliatory" approach.
.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 28 Oct 2014 16:57

Indian soldiers prevent Chinese troops from constructing road in Arunachal

NEW DELHI: Arunachal Pradesh, much like eastern Ladakh, continues to be a major flashpoint between India and China, with Indian troops recently blocking attempts by the People's Liberation Army soldiers to once again construct a road in the Asaphila region.

While the Asaphila incident did not lead to a prolonged military face-off, unlike the serious ones at Chumar and Demchok in eastern Ladakh last month, it's an indication of the continuing shadow-boxing between the two countries all along the 4,057-km long Line of Actual Control.

Both armies undertake regular patrols to lay claim to "8-10 disputed areas" like Asaphila, a remote 100 sq km area along the LAC in Upper Subansiri division of Arunachal, as well as the so-called "Fish Tail-I and II" areas in Chaglagam sector, which take their name from the shape the LAC takes in the region.

Sources said the PLA's "heightened activity" was been witnessed in Asaphila region for some months now. "The PLA troops, with vehicles and other equipment, then tried to build a road till Point 2445. They were then stopped from doing so by our soldiers," said a source.

The last Indian military outpost in the region is at Taksing, which is on the eastern edge of Asaphila, while the PLA bases too are located 40-50-km away. "Soldiers from both sides undertake aggressive patrolling of 7-8 days' duration. Some lead to face-offs, which are quite common in the region," said the source.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Oct 2014 07:02

BMos missile up XI Gins bunghole!

X-posted from the Viet td.

Great news (TOI) that Indo-Viet defence ties will be enhanced.BMos on the cards,Russia reportedly OK to the sale,N-reactors too (220MW),have been planned for some time,apart from other agreements.Here is an earlier report as well.Vietnam should be to India what Pakistan is to China,a strong eco and military power which could also develop its own N-capability in the future.
The next step after these agreements is that of naval facilities at Cam Ranh Bay,etc.,so that Indian warships,subs and aircraft can operate from there monitoring the Indo-China Sea.The govt. should also sell/transfer some of its Dornier surveillance aircraft to Vietnam as we manufacture the same here.They will be invaluable to the Vietnamese to monitor their island territories and can be acquired in adequate number as their cost is low.Akash and Prithvi/Prahar missiles too would be most handy for the Vietnamese.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 965272.cms
India ignores China's frown, offers defence boost to Vietnam
Indrani Bagchi,TNN | Oct 29, 2014

NEW DELHI: India on Tuesday took a decisive step towards countering China's assertive power, by committing to help Vietnam's defence modernization, a move that will resonate unpleasantly in Beijing.

After his meeting with visiting Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, Narendra Modi said, "Our defence cooperation with Vietnam is among our most important ones. India remains committed to the modernization of Vietnam's defence and security forces. This will include expansion of our training programme, which is already very substantial, joint-exercises and cooperation in defence equipment. We will quickly operationalise the $100 million line of credit that will enable Vietnam acquire new naval vessels from India."

For the first time, India sent clear signals that it may be willing to sell the Brahmos short range cruise missiles to Vietnam, a long-standing demand by Hanoi. The previous Indian government was a little hesitant, citing reservations by Russia (which is a co-developer). Russia has now indicated its willingness. India will wait to enter the MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) before making a sale, but both countries have decisively crossed this hurdle.

Vietnam's importance to New Delhi was evident when President Pranab Mukherjee paid a state visit to that country, almost coinciding with Chinese President Xi Jinping's first visit to India.

READ ALSO: After submarine training, India likely to train Vietnamese pilots to fly Sukhois
China warns India about taking up Vietnam's offer for oil exploration in disputed sea

Making Vietnam the heart of India's Asia-Pacific policy, the Indian government has sent a clear signal to China that it would actively pursue its interests in the region. The PM tweeted: "My government has promptly & purposefully intensified our engagement in Asia Pacific region, which is critical to India's future." Interestingly, China's state councilor Yang Jiechi (who is also the special representative for India) was in Hanoi on Monday to look for a solution to their maritime territorial disputes.

Away from the media glare, Indian and Vietnamese leaders agreed to work with Japan in a trilateral format to coordinate positions on security and economic policies. India already has a trilateral with US and Japan, but a Vietnam-India-Japan trio would have big implications for the balance of power in Asia.

Significantly, India has agreed to share civil nuclear cooperation with Vietnam. The Indian atomic energy sector has wanted to sell the DAE's small 220 MW nuclear reactors to Vietnam. While the 2008 NSG waiver for India opens it up for nuclear commerce, there are several other steps before India can actually export nuclear reactors. But the process has started.

Modi reiterated India's stand that territorial disputes in the South China Sea should be resolved according to international law. China uses its historical claim to draw a '9-dash line' on the sea which it claims as its own.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Oct 2014 08:09

The other thing is that ISRO is preparing to send Vietnamese satellites up. In fact, we should build communication satellites for Vietnam and include IRNSS payload as part of these. This would help us get some slots in that region. This is what China is also doing bey helping Colmbo, Islamabad and some African countries in space.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 29 Oct 2014 10:05

finally...

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asi ... 39786.html
Prime Minister Narendra Modi said India would sell naval patrol boats to Vietnam under a US$100 million line of credit to the Southeast Asian nation, which is seeking to improve its defences in the disputed South China Sea.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Oct 2014 10:45

India to modernise Vietnam’s defence forces - Suhasini Haider, The Hindu

Calling India’s defence cooperation with Vietnam “among our most important,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave a commitment to “modernise Vietnam’s defence and security forces” on Tuesday after talks with his counterpart Nguyen Tan Dung.

The two countries signed several agreements, including a memorandum of understanding for exploration by ONGC Videsh Limited in two blocks in the South China Sea. As The Hindu had reported on Monday, Mr. Modi also announced the operationalisation of the $100 million line of credit for Vietnam’s defence purchases.

Sources told The Hindu that Vietnam was keen to buy four off-shore patrol vehicles to start with.

This was especially significant as they would be deployed to police the South China Sea, areas of which were under dispute with China.

In a joint appearance before the media after their meeting, Mr. Nguyen said Vietnam “highly appreciated India’s position regarding the East Sea [South China Sea] issue and India’s continued cooperation with Vietnam in oil and gas exploration.”

Responding to a question about Mr. Nguyen’s earlier statement asking for “India’s support” in resolving the South China Sea dispute, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said on Tuesday that the dispute should only be resolved “by parties directly concerned.”

In an indirect reference to India, Mr. Hong said, “Relevant countries should respect the efforts made by parties directly concerned to resolve disputes through negotiation and consultation and to uphold regional peace and stability.” While neither of the two blocks signed for on Tuesday is in the disputed part, India’s exploration has irked Beijing in the past. Mr. Hong said the India-Vietnam MoUs on oil explorations must not “undermine China’s sovereignty and interests.” Chinese State Counsellor Yang Jiechi has been in Hanoi for talks, even as Mr. Nguyen arrived in New Delhi.

Mr. Modi said Vietnam was at the “forefront” of India’s efforts in the Asia Pacific region, which he said his government had “promptly and purposefully intensified” since coming to power. Mr. Modi’s tough statement on the South China Sea comes after his statement in Japan in September that seemed to accuse China of “expansionist policies”, and the joint statement during his visit to the U.S. called for “safeguarding maritime security in the South China Sea.”

With the decision to step up supplying vessels and training the Vietnamese navy, Mr. Modi seems to be backing the tough words with conscious action. A source said the Vietnamese government now “will be free to place orders with either government or private Indian vendors.”

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Oct 2014 16:42

The following caught my eye, from ToI

Away from the media glare, Indian and Vietnamese leaders agreed to work with Japan in a trilateral format to coordinate positions on security and economic policies. India already has a trilateral with US and Japan, but a Vietnam-India-Japan trio would have big implications for the balance of power in Asia.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Oct 2014 18:32

SSridhar wrote:The following caught my eye, from ToI

Away from the media glare, Indian and Vietnamese leaders agreed to work with Japan in a trilateral format to coordinate positions on security and economic policies. India already has a trilateral with US and Japan, but a Vietnam-India-Japan trio would have big implications for the balance of power in Asia.

Here's a link to the first page of the first "Managing Chinese Threat" Thread. It started off with much speculation and theories, and in all that, the main point was that Japan and Vietnam are central to India's security doctrine in East Asia, and there should be a security structure comprising of India, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Oct 2014 19:31

India should do more to maintain peace in border areas: China - PTI

China's military on Friday expressed concern over India's plan to construct 54 new border posts in Arunachal Pradesh, saying India should not complicate the situation and do more to maintain peace as it is a "disputed area".

"We have noticed relevant report. Dispute still exists in the eastern part of China-India border," Defence ministry spokesman Yang Yujin told a media briefing here when asked a question on the plans announced by the home ministry to build 54 new border posts along the Arunachal Pradesh border.

"We urge the Indian side to do more to maintain peace and stability in the area and not do things that may complicate the situation," he said.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 31 Oct 2014 18:12

Long read... but gripping

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... /380789/3/

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 31 Oct 2014 18:13

Vocabulary primer for the enduring & upcoming problems in the maritime theatre:
http://cimsec.org/feast-cabbage-salami- ... utes/13441

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 01 Nov 2014 16:25

SSridhar wrote:India should do more to maintain peace in border areas: China - PTI
China's military on Friday expressed concern over India's plan to construct 54 new border posts in Arunachal Pradesh, saying India should not complicate the situation and do more to maintain peace as it is a "disputed area".

"We have noticed relevant report. Dispute still exists in the eastern part of China-India border," Defence ministry spokesman Yang Yujin told a media briefing here when asked a question on the plans announced by the home ministry to build 54 new border posts along the Arunachal Pradesh border.

"We urge the Indian side to do more to maintain peace and stability in the area and not do things that may complicate the situation," he said.

If India should not "complicate" the situation in "disputed areas" by infrastructure developments in AP, the China should also not "complicate" the situation in Aksai Chin and POK which are also disputed. Perhaps China should dismantle the highway to Sinkiang and other infrastructure developments in Aksai Chin and cease all work in POK.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 01 Nov 2014 17:00

Rajrang, China answered that question way back in November, 2011 in connection with India's oil exploration in South China Sea.

Man Mohan Singh told Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao during the ASEAN Summit in Bali that Indian activities in South China Sea were purely ‘commercial’ and issues of sovereignty needed to be settled according to ‘according to international laws and practices’.

When questioned about the Indian PM's reply, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said “We don't hope to see outside forces involved in the South China Sea dispute and do not want to see foreign companies engage in activities that will undermine China's sovereignty and interest.” When questioned as to why China disputed India’s presence in oil exploration in South China Sea while she herself was building dams and roads in disputed PoK, Mr. Sun, Deputy Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave a very unconvincing and convoluted answer. He said that the South China Sea dispute was “very complex” and involved many parties. China was trying to discuss the issue with other countries with overlapping claims. In PoK, China's “only focus” was on the development of the local economy. “It doesn't mean” that China had ratified Pakistan's claim to the territory. “The dispute [over the PoK] is between India and Pakistan. So, whenever there are disputes or tensions, China will not be judgmental. Therefore, I don't think they should be mixed”.

My foot.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 01 Nov 2014 17:34

We have right to develop areas along China border: Kiren Rijiju - PTI, ET

Brushing aside China's reservations to its plans to develop infrastructure along the border, government today said it has every right to undertake such projects in Indian territory and no one can stop it.

"We will do certain infrastructural activities which have not been done in the last 60 years. The Chinese should not have a problem with my statement.... They cannot stop me from doing my work," Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju told reporters here [New Delhi] on the sidelines of a function here.

China had recently reacted sharply to a statement by Rijiju that India was planning to construct a road along the international boundary from Mago-Thingbu in Tawang to Vijaynagar in Changlang district of Arunachal Pradesh to match China's road infrastructure across the McMahon Line.

"There is a dispute about the eastern part of the China- India border. Before final settlement is reached, we hope that India will not take any action that may further complicate situation," a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman had said.

Rijiju today said he was only referring to the government's plans to improve border infrastructure within India's territory and not in Chinese territory.

"I didn't say that we are going to do anything on their territory. I am an MP from Arunachal Pradesh. I am constitutionally elected and I have the constitutional right and obligation to do whatever is right in our territory. I am looking at border management also," he said.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 01 Nov 2014 17:38

India may build airport at Tawang, near China border - Saibal Dasgupta, ET

Minister of state for external affairs VK Singh on Friday said India was hopeful of building an airport in Tawang while the work on another airport at Pashighat in Arunachal Pradesh was underway.

"But there is a problem with land availability there (in Tawang)," Singh, who is also in charge of the northeast affairs, told Indian journalists here.

"The land acquisition problem for the airport in Itanagar, Arunachal's capital, has just been sorted out." Singh added the government is planning airfields in Arunachal Pradesh for smaller aircraft.

Singh said the government plans to create a separate company in collaboration with the Indian Airlines to operate small aircraft in the northeast.

He added new highways are being planned as part of the efforts initiated for major infrastructure development in the region. The railway budget for the region has been increased by 58%.

Singh discussed new measures to examine risks Chinese dams pose in the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra.

Experts claim the dams have made India vulnerable to flash floods and reduced water supply. They say China would now control water flow from the upper reaches.

Singh said the government would commission a study to examine the impact of the dams. "It is essential to re-examine studies done in the past. It is only after through study that the risk posed by Tibetan dams could be determined," he said.

"In the early 1950s, a major earthquake took place and changed the course of Brahmaputra. The river bed also went up. We have to see how much water comes from China, and how much is contributed by its different tributaries like the Lohit.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 02 Nov 2014 11:46

Will China pivot away from the Pacific to the Himalayas?

Depends upon which adversary they want to put down first - India or Japan/SE Asia. In both cases they will be putting down the US, by showing the world that the US is incapable of stopping China. After all long term India will be the most powerful challenger to China (in population 10 times bigger than Japan, 4 times bigger than the US) and this would always be the temptation to "take care of" a possible Indian challenge first.

Three events in close sequence in September 2014 - is that a point of inflexion in Chinese thought? This may not be known for months.

1) Xi visits India 17th to 19th September 2014 - Was the border incursion during the visit intended to gage Modi's personality at close quarters PERSONALLY by Xi relative to the course of the great power relationship between India and China? Did Xi conclude that Modi will have a more muscular response to the rise of China unlike previous Indian Governments?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericrmeyer/ ... dia-visit/

2) Xi asks PLA to prepare for regional war 23 September 2014 - Is this a signal to Japan, SE Asia or India? Perhaps India since it very closely followed his India visit. India can only ignore this coincidence at its peril.
http://news.oneindia.in/feature/xi-want ... 27771.html

3) China and Japan re-start talks: 23 and 24 September 2014.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/the-late ... apan-thaw/

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 02 Nov 2014 16:08

Is there any war in the history that China (read Hans) has won? They were tried to fight all throughout their history and were still ruled by mongols. They didn't even cross the pacific to expand or had ability to challenge any pacific nation.

I am not sure hans with bodies modelled for plains can fight in the hills of himalayas or arunachal with indian mountain corps nor I believe China can combat India on a sustained basis and would like financial backbone of China namely shanghai and guangdong under raining Agni missiles. On our side we do not have any concentration of power, wealth in our cities which are difficult to pin down and destroy wealth. With one child policy they would not like their kids to be fed to get killed on battlefront against formidable opponents like India or Japan. This will lead to chinese generation retiring in next twenty years to die as developing nation and not developed one.

All they can do is try to keep India and Japan on their toes by skirmishes or proxy war. CCP is not capable or winning against Vietnam let alone India.

unfortunately this is the fact for tiny di@k$.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Nov 2014 16:19

Chinese Army entered Indian waters at Pangong Lake - PTI, Economic Times

Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) recently made a two-pronged simultaneous incursion by sending its troops into Indian waters in the Pangong lake as well as five kms deep into Indian territory through the land route in the same area, according to reports.

Official sources said today that according to reports received by security agencies, Chinese boats entered into the Indian waters at the Pangong lake nestled in the higher reaches of Ladakh on October 22.

These incursions were simultaneously backed by Chinese troops on the road built alongside the Pangong lake which took place in eastern Ladakh and on the northern bank of Pangong Lake, located 168 km from Leh, the sources said.

However, alert troops of ITBP noticed the movement of Chinese troops and intercepted them at the imaginary line that is supposed to be the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the lake.

The ITBP soldiers also blocked the Chinese troops mounted on mountain terrain vehicles who were trying to cross over the LAC by road.

A banner drill, in which both sides wave banners claiming it to be their territory, was carried out which was followed by a face-off between the troops of the two sides.

However, Chinese troops had to return after the Indian troops neither allowed them to move their boats forward not allowed the troops on road to move an inch further, the sources said.

Chinese troops had managed to enter upto Finger IV area in the region from where they were sent back. This area has been a bone of contention between India and China as both sides claim it to be a part of their territory.

When Indian side was trying to back its claim on the area during negotiations, the Chinese army constructed a metal-top road and claimed the area to be part of Aksai Chin area, the sources said. {This is like China creating new islands in the SCS using sunken ships and claiming territory}

China had construct a road up to Finger-IV area which falls under Siri Jap area and is five km deep into the LAC, the sources said.

The simultaneous approach to enter Indian waters was seen as a move by the Chinese troops to put psychological pressure on the Indian troops who man the area.

The Chinese patrols used to come frequently from the northern and southern banks of this lake, whose 45 km stretch is on the Indian side while another 90 km is on the Chinese side.

Indians are armed with high-speed interceptor boats, bought from the US, which can accommodate nearly 15 soldiers and are equipped with radars, infra-red and GPS systems.

These boats are stated to be as good as the Chinese vessels and are used to conduct reconnaissance and area domination patrols.

The situation along the banks of the lake has always remained volatile with Chinese troops being intercepted by Indian Army patrol several times after the three-week long stand-off in the Depsang plains of Daulat Beg Oldie (DBO) in May last year.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 02 Nov 2014 16:51

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/chine ... ake-615172

Perhaps time to really up the ante... and do a bit of walking into Tibet territory from the Indian site from time to time accidentally / incidentally / deliberately / otherwise.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 02 Nov 2014 18:54

vijaykarthik wrote:Long read... but gripping

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... /380789/3/

Two observations:

1) The analysis has neglected the India-China standoff.

2) Quoting from the article:

"Although China will almost certainly soon boast the world’s largest economy, a number of indicators suggest that the country may have already entered a period of maximum potential relative to the rest of the world—that the economic red flags already waving may portend a change in economic trajectory, rather than a hiccup."

The boldface text is the likely reason for China's aggressiveness during recent years - because now is their maximum potential for success in altering the status-quo in their favor.

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 02 Nov 2014 21:11

India has to dispute status of Tibet. I see no other options. we are currently in the quandary of China disputing all of India's regions. So any give and take will only involve India giving in part of its areas to arrive at a settlement! We must make the whole of Tibet disputed. Time to bury the one China policy for good.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 02 Nov 2014 21:49

Although China will almost certainly soon boast the world’s largest economy, a number of indicators suggest that the country may have already entered a period of maximum potential relative to the rest of the world—that the economic red flags already waving may portend a change in economic trajectory, rather than a hiccup."

I posted something similar two years ago, India's relative power deficit is already past a minimum with respect to China. Economically and militarily, this is the time for China to settle border issues with India. As India's domestic weapons developments come on stream, from Akash to Astre to Nirbhay and SAR satellite surveillance, China will be irresponsible to precipitate a border clash after a window of more than a couple of years.

Deterrent nuclear submarine patrols will change the Indian mindset. There will be no technology that China will field over India that India cannot match. China's new fighters won't see full potential for another ten years at least. By that time MMRCA or possibly AMCA will be flying.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 02 Nov 2014 23:06

Yes indeed Tibetans are very pleased with the shiny roads through their territory. At any rate that question is best addressed to those Hongers now in the news.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 03 Nov 2014 00:48

One of my worker in from Tibet. Chinese arrest any Tibetan whose name was given to the police by han Chinese. One never see the guy again and if by chance he comes back he is terrified to death. Tibetan language and culture not encouraged. These people are deeply religious.For them shiny roads are to facilitate complete occupation and to change demographics of Tibet. One interesting bit: I met a Han Chinese from Lahasa who spoke perfect Hindi.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Nov 2014 13:09

"India has to dispute...",Exactly.We've been saying this on BR for overa decade now.China only resoects someone standing upto them.They then like cowards and bullies that they are,retreat.Tibet and Taiwan are two "T" trump cards that we hold,with Vietnam as the Joker. The GOI should with much fanfare send a high-level delagation to Taiwan and sell them surreptitiously the German U-boat designs that we no longer need,which the Germans themselves secretly sold to the SAfricans! China has thousands of missiles aimed at Taiwan to devasatte the country in a war,and provided much of the same to Pak.India should likewise return the compliment and supply Taiwan hundreds if not thousands of indigenous MTCR regime 300km missiles like Prithvi,etc. In return,Taiwan can invest billions into India,set up chip manufacturing complexes and cooperate in intel too. India can also later on sell it tanks,ICVs,LCAs,SAMs,whatever it wishes.The Chinese if they protest too much,must be told that we're only repaying them in the same coin (Pak).

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Nov 2014 13:38

Geo-strategic Implications of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank R.S.Kalha, IDSA

Last Friday when the Chinese President Xi Jinping inaugurated the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank [AIIB] at Beijing along with 21 other member countries, including India, a new and a highly significant financial institution emerged on the geo-strategic horizon of Asia. To give it broader scope, the Chinese have invited and also won the support of some wealthy West Asian nations, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The proposal for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) was first presented publicly by Premier Li Keqiang at the Boao Forum for Asia in April 2013. Nonetheless, the Chinese Finance Minister, Lou Jiwei would have us believe that this event is entirely altruistic and that:

The AIIB will be a multilateral development organization for Asia established on intergovernmental lines, and it will function in accordance with the models and principles of other multilateral development banks. It aims to boost economic development and regional economic cooperation by supporting investment in infrastructure and other projects in Asian countries. The new bank will become a professional and highly efficient investment and financing platform for infrastructure facilities, and will meet the demand for further development.1.

And yet close US allies in Asia such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia opted to stay out under intense US pressure. The case of Indonesia under the leadership of its new President Joko Widodo also staying out is rather unique; for did they too fall under US pressure or was it simply a case that the new government had no time to take such a crucial decision? That the US was not pleased with these developments had been known for long.

Several major news outlets, including the Financial Times and The New York Times, have carried reports in recent days highlighting the Obama administration’s attempt to convince other world powers to stay away from the Chinese led bank for a host of reasons.2. Senior United States officials and representatives of other governments involved have disclosed that in conversations with China’s potential partners, US officials, including US Secretary of State John Kerry, have lobbied against AIIB with unexpected determination and engaged in a vigorous campaign to persuade important allies to shun the project.3. It is reported that the United States Treasury Department has criticized AIIB as a ‘deliberate effort to undercut’ the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank; international financial institutions that are dominated by the United States and Japan. The US Treasury Department would have us believe that the new bank would ‘fail to meet environmental standards, procurement requirements and other safeguards adopted by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, including protection intended to prevent the forced removal of vulnerable populations from their lands’.4. The US has fought long and hard to have its ‘norms’ reflected in the programs of International financial institutions.

Surprisingly the US sponsored President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, a Korean-American national told reporters last Friday at a breakfast in Washington hosted by The Christian Science Monitor, that he simply did not spend much time worrying about such risks and that the White House’s political push has carried little weight within the World Bank. Asserting that the bank is ‘not a political organization’ and that it is ‘actually in our articles of agreement that we don’t get involved in domestic politics,’ Kim declined to elaborate the US position but added that it is for Washington to clarify its stand on the Chinese bank. As for the World Bank’s position, he said, ‘my sense is that we can work with [the Chinese] very well and that the Chinese government began talking with us very early on, really sort of immediately after they had this idea that, especially in Asia, there’s nowhere near enough money for infrastructure investment.’5.

The crux of the matter is however different for the US sees the establishment of the AIIB as an attempt by China to pull South- East Asian countries closer to its orbit and a soft-power play that promises economic benefits while refurbishing its image among its Asian neighbours. This is despite the fact that neither the World Bank nor the ADB are in a position to cater to the rising demands of Asian countries for infrastructure funding. In 2009 the Asian Development Bank estimated that the Asia-Pacific region would need as much as US$8 trillion in investments for physical infrastructure by 2020 — an amount that exceeds what the ADB or the World Bank can muster. Aware of US efforts to stymie the establishment of AIIB at an incipient stage perhaps for reasons other than economic; Jin Liqun the proposed Chinese leader of the AIIB and former head of China’s sovereign wealth fund (CICC),in an unprecedented meeting pressed the US Ambassador to China, Max Baucus, that the US should ‘soften its opposition’ to the bank. It remains to be seen whether the US will retain its adamant position with President Obama slated to visit Beijing shortly for a multi-lateral event but where a crucial Sino-US dialogue is to be held; preparations for which were initiated when the US National Security Advisor, Susan Rice visited Beijing and had met the Chinese President Xi Jinping.

It is not in the public domain whether the US pushed hard with India not to join the AIIB and what had been the Indian response. However going by the fact that India was one of the 21 countries present at the signing ceremony at Beijing; the response to the US request, if any, would obviously have been negative. The moot point however to note is whether India sees this as a purely economic event or whether it attaches any political connotations to it; as have the US and its close allies in Asia. The representation at the bureaucratic- Joint Secretary level- indicates that India is aware of this dilemma. The Chinese leadership no doubt would be quite pleased with the choice made by India; but the geo-strategic implications of this move, despite strenuous US opposition, should not be lost.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Nov 2014 17:50

India perturbed over Beijing's 'warming relations' with Sri Lanka, China says - Saibal dasgupta, ToI

China has strongly defended its decision to dock submarines at the Colombo port on two occasions and said "there is nothing unusual for naval vessels to dock at Colombo port despite concerns raised by India".

"It is an international common practice for navy submarine to stop for refueling and crew refreshment at an oversea port," a Chinese defence ministry official said.

The ministry suggested that India was more perturbed about China's "warming relations" with Sri Lanka than the docking of the nuclear submarine.

He said Chinese submarines have docked during its escort missions in the Gulf of Aden and waters off Somalia.

Sri Lanka allowed a Chinese submarine to dock at its Colombo harbour on Sunday despite concerns raised by India about "China's warming relations with the Indian Ocean island nation", the ministry said.

Another Chinese submarine had called at the same port ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to South Asia seven weeks ago.

China's naval relationship with Sri Lanka has been growing rapidly in recently months.

A amphibious landing ship, the Changbaishan and a frigate, Yuncheng, of the 18th escort fleet of Chinese navy sailed to the Colombo harbour in mid-August before leaving for a voyage in the Somali waters.

The Chinese defence ministry quoted a Sri Lankan navy spokesman making similar comments, a move that suggested that the two countries were making coordinated response to the situation.

"This is nothing unusual. Since 2010, 230 warships have called at Colombo port from various countries on goodwill visits and for refueling and crew refreshment," the ministry said quoting Sri Lankan navy spokesman Kosala Warnakulasuriya.

However, India has already raised concerns over the frequency of Chinese visits to Sri Lanka, it said quoting Indian officials.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Nov 2014 23:02

Is it true that Road project in NE is financed by JAPAN and a Japanese company will be doing the job at fast pace? Then they should also be able to help in laying rail road along side at the same time.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Nov 2014 05:19

Jhujar wrote:Is it true that Road project in NE is financed by JAPAN and a Japanese company will be doing the job at fast pace?

Yes, it is true.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Nov 2014 16:27

Centre clears Rs 90 crore for road projects in Arunachal - PTI

The ministry of development of north eastern region (DONER) has cleared a total of about Rs 90 crore this fiscal for various road projects in Arunachal pradesh.

This would be part of the total Rs 120.41 crore for 17 road projects for which state shares were cleared and utilization certificates submitted to the ministry.

This was stated by DONER secretary R Vijay Kumar, joint secretary A M Singh and NEC joint secretary VB Pathak during a discussion on various road projects with state PWD minister Gojen Gadi in New Delhi yesterday.

With hardly six working months in the state and one month gone, delay in release of funds is likely to escalate the project costs and would require re-submission of the projects, Gadi said to justify his plea, official sources said.

Gadi had received assurance from Union MoS (Home) Kiren Rijiju for release of central share for 17 NLCPR projects after submitting the DPRs prepared by PWD (Highway) western and eastern zone chief engineers at Ziro in Lower Subansiri district on September 26 last.

On Gadi's request, the officials of the DONER ministry assured to find out the cause behind inordinate delay in sanctioning of the long pending 35-km Koyu-Ego road (Phase-II) for which a proposal worth Rs 96 crore was submitted.

"We will take it up immediately," they assured. The ministry has already released 60 per cent of the total funds earmarked for Arunachal, Kumar told Gadi, sources added.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 05 Nov 2014 10:08

Philip wrote:"India has to dispute...",Exactly.We've been saying this on BR for overa decade now.China only resoects someone standing upto them.They then like cowards and bullies that they are,retreat.Tibet and Taiwan are two "T" trump cards that we hold,with Vietnam as the Joker. The GOI should with much fanfare send a high-level delagation to Taiwan and sell them surreptitiously the German U-boat designs that we no longer need,which the Germans themselves secretly sold to the SAfricans! China has thousands of missiles aimed at Taiwan to devasatte the country in a war,and provided much of the same to Pak.India should likewise return the compliment and supply Taiwan hundreds if not thousands of indigenous MTCR regime 300km missiles like Prithvi,etc. In return,Taiwan can invest billions into India,set up chip manufacturing complexes and cooperate in intel too. India can also later on sell it tanks,ICVs,LCAs,SAMs,whatever it wishes.The Chinese if they protest too much,must be told that we're only repaying them in the same coin (Pak).

The problem with this approach is that the PLA will invade India "to teach India a lesson." How able, confident and willing is India to stop the PLA in the Himalayas? This approach could have worked if India did not share a land boundary with China. Therein lies India's biggest external challenge for a long time to come - the inability to displease China beyond a point.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 05 Nov 2014 10:32

^^you seem confident that the "PLA will invade China... if we displease them beyond a point"... The question here is at what point will India invade China, if they displease us beyond a point. The endgame is the same for both. Total annihilation. I don't think either wants that.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 07 Nov 2014 09:26

rajrang wrote:
vijaykarthik wrote:Long read... but gripping

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... /380789/3/
Two observations:

1) The analysis has neglected the India-China standoff.

2) Quoting from the article:

"Although China will almost certainly soon boast the world’s largest economy, a number of indicators suggest that the country may have already entered a period of maximum potential relative to the rest of the world—that the economic red flags already waving may portend a change in economic trajectory, rather than a hiccup."

The boldface text is the likely reason for China's aggressiveness during recent years - because now is their maximum potential for success in altering the status-quo in their favor.

India hasn't been included because its all about maritime disputes. India wont figure in that geographically. If I come across an article which talks about land disputes, I'll pass on.

China is at crossroads and its interesting days currently. I hope the reln between India and Vietnam gets better at a quicker pace. In the meanwhile, Japan is tightening up defenses of the Philippines and the rest too.

Good.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 07 Nov 2014 22:14

kiss and make up?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29947967#

currently not clear what Abe's stance is though. It was speculated that he will accept that there is a dispute.. but article seems to imply that stance hasn't changed?

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 07 Nov 2014 22:39

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/11 ... c=rss&_r=0

this seems to be more clearer. So, both of them plan to agree... to disagree. And mention that different views exist.

I see...